Motion enhancers have been dialed back considerably from when they first appeared and were universally despised. Those first sets are nothing like what is released today. My HDTV is currently to double 24 to 48. So two flashes of each frame. Any more and I don't like it.

I just got back from seeing it at a very new century (cinemark) XD theater in HFR 3D with Dolby Atmos.
my impressions on both new to me technologies was positive.
on the HFR side of things the first thing i noticed straight away was the annoying flicker i often see when watching 3D in a theater at 24 fps is completely gone. granted this flicker is usually only obvious with bright images so its not a huge issue but i even noticed it in the 3D previews that were played tonight before the movie and its in my opinion what probably gives people headaches when watching 3D at 24fps. on the motion/realism front let me first give you some background on my own personal tastes. i'm not and never been a huge fan of the soap opera effect many motion enhancers can and do produce, i however do enjoy watching films on TV's that have a good adjustable motion enhancer that can take a balanced approach and most of my film watching is currently done through my PC on a 60hz Panasonic LCD TV and i use SVP on the PC for motion enhancement and frame interpolation with my own custom settings i've found i like. the HFR was just like that except it did not have any of the bad side effects from it, error's etc. that can pop up with certain scenes due to patterns often etc. it was like watching a movie with the perfect motion enhancer that had zero flaws.
as for the folks saying it looked fake, had to much detail etc. sound to me like the same group of people who said that about motion enhancers on TV's when they were first coming out. that stuff is no longer new to the market and has been a success and i'm sure in the long run 48fps will be as well. panning at 24fps is just so unnatural no matter what you're viewing it on and once you get used to not seeing it you see it 10x more when you go to see a movie in a theater at 24fps IMO. its like the reverse of what the "24fps purists" i'll calll them say about higher frame rates. overall i was very immersed into the movie and only at one time when i there was a wide pan going on with mountain ranges in the background did i see something that clearly looked fake to me and it was only because i started focusing on that background rather than the center point of view, the character's of the movie standing on top of a different mountain range. as soon as i put my focus point back where it was supposed to be it looked amazing, this in my opinion goes to show how if one comes in skeptical and critical of 48 fps like many critics seem to have done you can spend all day picking apart the movies effects because your not watching the movie your watching for defects.
on the Dolby Atmos, not sure how long its been out. i don't go to the movies that often but i know this was the first time i saw a movie with the sound system and i thought it did an amazing job especially with ambient sounds in the parts of the film that made good use of it.
as for the film, it was great and i will definitely go see the next one. did it have the impact the first LOTR had? nope it did not, its hard to overcome that and i did not expect it to. i'd still give it a 8.5/10 easily one of the best films of this year.

3-D and Dolby Atmos is a terrible idea, more things to distract from the movie.

One of the points in the article was the problem understanding what was being spoken. I'm wondering if that problem might have been in the theater's audio environment rather than the distraction due to the effects of 3D HFR.

If you are massive LOTR fan like me watch it first in regular 2D and then in 3D HFR. HFR for the most part ruined the movie and experience. HFR looks amazing in kickass CGI action scenes but that scenes took only 5% of movie and the rest of 95% of movie you'll be distracted by 3D HFR ********.

Saw it the morning after the debut. Dolby Atmos definitely added great sound placement around and above (I thought it was used more effectively than Brave). The HFR to me was a mixed bag. While the flickering was absent, there was clearly times when the CGI integration felt awkward or scenes with fire or moving water seemed artificial. I'm not sure how much was a result of the HFR or the fact that my mind had not adjusted yet. By the end of the film the HFR seemed better integrated, which lends me to think part of the issue is my mind's interpretation of the content. The clarity was starling at times. I will rent it on Blu-ray and let my Kuro speak the 24p truth! As far as the film itself I think I prefer any of the 3 LOTR to this movie, but I typically appreciate movies more at home lately. It was nice to be back in the realm of Middle Earth.

Exactly, if you up the frame rates you notice that fake stuff looks fake and artifice looks unnatural.
Also, do you ever notice how movie stars and anyone in movies tends to seem more sort of special and impressive and beyond a regular human and yet not as much on a soap opera and far lesser still on HFR video (or real life). It's the 24fps that gives that special power to movie actors (sure they may have looks and charisma and acting abilities beyond the norm, of course, but without 24fps they don't have quite that magical feeling to them and it's more like watching joe and jim talk next door).

I finally got the chance to see this movie in Doldby ATMOS and HFR 3D:

Dolby ATMOS is awesome. There is a scene with some characters sleeping, and I literally poked my wife because I thought she had fallen asleep. HAHA That's the first time a movie in a theatre has ever fooled me completely into thinking I was hearing something real. There is another scene where there is a character off-screen that is talking and moving around the room, and you can hear it so clearly moving all over the theatre. It was very cool and immersive.

Now, about my take on HRF. I will be totally up-front here. As you can tell from my previous posts in this thread... I was already a fan of HFR. My PC monitor runs at 120Hz (full 120Hz input, not any sort of interpolated algorithm like many LCD TVs). I play video games at 120 FPS. My personal video camera takes 1080p/60 video. So all my home movies play at 60 FPS. So I would say I am somewhat acclimated to HFR.

But even after saying all that, there WAS an adjustment period for me. For the first 20 minutes of the movie or so, I kept focusing on the HFR... when a character moved quickly I had the sensation of the film being sped up and when the camera would do a wide pan, it felt more "game like" probably because most of my games are HRF. But gone was the flicker you can sometimes notice with 3D. Everything was smooth as silk. Then I started paying attention to the details. When the camera would do wide pans, no more jitter, you could see everything clearly. And when the fast-action scenes were playing I fell in love with HFR... I could actually see every detail of every punch and sword swipe. Slow motion in HFR is a BEAUTIFUL thing. There is a scene where the main characters fall into a hole and the camera follows. I got a real sensation of falling while in that scene I was so immersed.

The only down-side besides the adjustment your mind has to make is, since you can see more detail, the movie-makers have to also do an even better job of making the effects look real. The Hobbit of course is using WETA Digital, who I consider the best in the business (even better than Industrial Light and Magic) but there were a few scenes that were clearly CG. But I can't really fault them... this is the first major HRF movie, and there is probably much to learn about how to best utilize the format... but I for one am now an even bigger HFR fan, and will plan to see every movie I can in HFR assuming there are more. I think it will grow on all of us, even the ones that don't like it at first. Someday we will look back at 24 FPS like we do now at black and white.

So if you are reading this trying to decide whether or not to see the movie in HFR, I encourage you to try it. And try it with an open mind. Even if you have a bad experience, it is an experience you may or may not have another chance to get.

I finally got the chance to see this movie in Doldby ATMOS and HFR 3D:
Dolby ATMOS is awesome. There is a scene with some characters sleeping, and I literally poked my wife because I thought she had fallen asleep. HAHA That's the first time a movie in a theatre has ever fooled me completely into thinking I was hearing something real. There is another scene where there is a character off-screen that is talking and moving around the room, and you can hear it so clearly moving all over the theatre. It was very cool and immersive.
Now, about my take on HRF. I will be totally up-front here. As you can tell from my previous posts in this thread... I was already a fan of HFR. My PC monitor runs at 120Hz (full 120Hz input, not any sort of interpolated algorithm like many LCD TVs). I play video games at 120 FPS. My personal video camera takes 1080p/60 video. So all my home movies play at 60 FPS. So I would say I am somewhat acclimated to HFR.
But even after saying all that, there WAS an adjustment period for me. For the first 20 minutes of the movie or so, I kept focusing on the HFR... when a character moved quickly I had the sensation of the film being sped up and when the camera would do a wide pan, it felt more "game like" probably because most of my games are HRF. But gone was the flicker you can sometimes notice with 3D. Everything was smooth as silk. Then I started paying attention to the details. When the camera would do wide pans, no more jitter, you could see everything clearly. And when the fast-action scenes were playing I fell in love with HFR... I could actually see every detail of every punch and sword swipe. Slow motion in HFR is a BEAUTIFUL thing. There is a scene where the main characters fall into a hole and the camera follows. I got a real sensation of falling while in that scene I was so immersed.
The only down-side besides the adjustment your mind has to make is, since you can see more detail, the movie-makers have to also do an even better job of making the effects look real. The Hobbit of course is using WETA Digital, who I consider the best in the business (even better than Industrial Light and Magic) but there were a few scenes that were clearly CG. But I can't really fault them... this is the first major HRF movie, and there is probably much to learn about how to best utilize the format... but I for one am now an even bigger HFR fan, and will plan to see every movie I can in HFR assuming there are more. I think it will grow on all of us, even the ones that don't like it at first. Someday we will look back at 24 FPS like we do now at black and white.
So if you are reading this trying to decide whether or not to see the movie in HFR, I encourage you to try it. And try it with an open mind. Even if you have a bad experience, it is an experience you may or may not have another chance to get.

NEVER. 24P FOR LIFE. :D:D:D

Im too use to it

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

AVS is a place where people that are audio/visual enthusiasts hang out. Most of us spend $1000's (some even more) on our home A/V equipment.

I also fully understand and can appreciate some of the biases we have towards 24 FPS, and other well established standards. I read that entire article linked above on Gizmodo, and the writer made some very good points.

However...

What I cannot understand is how A/V enthusiasts would not be at least curious enough about the new audio and/or video format to not be excited about seeing it. Even if just to confirm their already formed opinions. Dolby ATMOS appears to be here to stay... but HFR is definitely something that may or may not make the cut. So I think anyone even remotely interested in video should check it out... even if you have no interest in Middle Earth, and do not expect to like the new HFR frame rate. It's an experience. It's not subtle, you WILL notice it. So check it out. Even amongst all the negativity in the Gizmodo article that guy admits to seeing better detail, and also he seems glad someone tried it.

One thing I find a little odd... not trying to pick on anyone...
AVS is a place where people that are audio/visual enthusiasts hang out. Most of us spend $1000's (some even more) on our home A/V equipment.
I also fully understand and can appreciate some of the biases we have towards 24 FPS, and other well established standards. I read that entire article linked above on Gizmodo, and the writer made some very good points.
However...
What I cannot understand is how A/V enthusiasts would not be at least curious enough about the new audio and/or video format to not be excited about seeing it. Even if just to confirm their already formed opinions. Dolby ATMOS appears to be here to stay... but HFR is definitely something that may or may not make the cut. So I think anyone even remotely interested in video should check it out... even if you have no interest in Middle Earth, and do not expect to like the new HFR frame rate. It's an experience. It's not subtle, you WILL notice it. So check it out. Even amongst all the negativity in the Gizmodo article that guy admits to seeing better detail, and also he seems glad someone tried it.

While I wasn't really into HFR, I was excited to check it out. Must admit the details during the panning shots were just spectacular. What I didn't like was the dialogue scenes and fight scenes. Oddly, I didn't like seeing every sword swing

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Saw the 2D 24fps version this week. Don't care for 3D, nor 48fps (though I've the option to watch one). The cinema I was in has the Sony Digital 4k projector, mighty sharp and gorgeous.

The movie itself is not as endearing as the LOTR series, nor the characters. It was long and somewhat of a let down, mired down in too much fighting scenes with predictable outcomes. I'm OK with Bilbo the character and the actor (Sherlock and the porn star in Love Actually), but not the rest. After almost 3 hours, there is no way I'll try 48fps while I did that with Avatar (2D then 3D, though still hate the thought of wearing those heavy glasses on top of mine).

As for 2 more movies, I'll reserve my judgement later. Like to see how the necromancer being developed.

In terms of adventurous or trying new gadget, I just cannot afford to upgrade to the JVC e-shift, but ready for 4k though there is virtually no media out there yet.

While I wasn't really into HFR, I was excited to check it out. Must admit the details during the panning shots were just spectacular. What I didn't like was the dialogue scenes and fight scenes. Oddly, I didn't like seeing every sword swing

I checked it out as well just for curiosity's sake. Absolutely hated it. It ruined the illusion of actually being in Middle Earth and made me feel like I was on the set during filming. It was like watching The Hobbit Meets The Young and the Restless. Sometimes less is more.

Here are a couple of questions for the folks that saw it in HFR and felt that the "movie magic" of being transported to Middle Earth was lost:

Would you like to see a movie based in reality (as in takes place on earth in a familiar "real" setting) in HFR?

Would you like to see a nature documentary film in HFR?

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this... if a movie is trying to suspend your disbelief, then I can understand why "seeing behind the curtain" can reduce the impact. But if a movie is something that is fairly plausible and doesn't require a lot of visual effects to tell the story, it seems like looking more real would be better.

And I especially would think that if you are trying to document actual reality in the greatest amount of detail possible that HRF would be a very useful tool in showing that. I can imagine seeing a close-up of a frog getting an insect with that lightning fast tongue in slow motion in HRF and getting a whole new appreciation for the nuance of such a thing.

But then that takes me back full-circle. If Middle Earth really did exist, and a camera crew went there with 3D HFR cameras to capture it, I'd want to see it in the highest most accurate detail possible, just like the nature film... so then I am back to thinking maybe HFR isn't the problem... maybe we just don't have the visual effects skills and/or technology to make the world convincing enough when we add the additional realism of smooth motion.

Nature documentary film has been shoot in HFR for a long time. The difference is mainly that we have gonne from an interlaced format to a progressive format. A difference that effects resolution more then motion.

Nature documentary film has been shoot in HFR for a long time. The difference is mainly that we have gonne from an interlaced format to a progressive format. A difference that effects resolution more then motion.

I assumed you would know I mean presented in HFR. I know that nature stuff is often shot with high speed, but that is not the same thing as being presented in HFR on a movie screen.

People can argue back and forth all they want, but everyone's reaction is valid. One of my best friends loved the HFR (he's 54) and I despised it with every fiber of my being (I'm 40). To each their own. But like 3D, it's undeniably something the studios want to use to charge higher ticket prices and I am 100% against paying more for what I look at as being an inferior product.

There is of course a quality difference like going from 720/24P to 4K/24P. But thats about it.
The actual motion flow will be more or less the same.

I am totally not getting what you are trying to say... resolution and frame rate are TOTALLY different as evidenced above, you can see all the controversy over the frame rate. Most people don't even notice what resolution they are seeing when in a theatre... but HRF jumps out at you and it's instantly noticeable. The response I was trying to get someone to talk about was... would you want to see a documentary of real life nature presented in a theatre in 48 FPS 3D? From my perception of most of the descriptive complaints about HFR (not just the "I hated it" type responses) it seemed that most people's negative feelings towards it was that it took you out of the "magic" of being transported to another world... and that it was more like being on the set when they are making the movie. Well, I would think "on set" would be exactly how you'd want to perceive something that is supposed to be real and there is no drama or suspension of disbelief required, so that is why I brought a documentary type presentation into my hypothetical question. Have you seen The Hobbit in HFR yet? I think when you do, you will see what I mean about it being waaaaay more of a difference than how many pixels across the screen is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens

People can argue back and forth all they want, but everyone's reaction is valid. One of my best friends loved the HFR (he's 54) and I despised it with every fiber of my being (I'm 40). To each their own...

For the record, I totally agree that everyone's reaction is valid. I am on a mission to try and understand what exactly it is about HFR that bothers some and not others. I am certainly not trying to antagonize anyone that didn't like it.

From my perception of most of the descriptive complaints about HFR (not just the "I hated it" type responses) it seemed that most people's negative feelings towards it was that it took you out of the "magic" of being transported to another world... and that it was more like being on the set when they are making the movie. Well, I would think "on set" would be exactly how you'd want to perceive something that is supposed to be real and there is no drama or suspension of disbelief required...

I condensed your quote but I think I understand where you are going with the documentary question. IMO, watching The Hobbit in HFR did largely have an "on the set" feel to it, which in theory a HFR documentary would give you that same feel, which I would think you would want. I watched one recently about lions attacking cheetahs and being immersed in that one at HFR would certainly enhance the experience and make me feel closer to being there if not make me feel like I was actually there. Back on track though, I also think part of the problem with the HFR experience in The Hobbit is that you could tell it's a set. I suspect the quality, material and detail of movie sets will greatly improve because of this technology or at least when HFR is used and I'm positive many set designers watched this movie and are already thinking about how to overcome this challenge.